BAE Systems & MRA4 [Archive]

Dengue_Dude

2nd Sep 2011, 11:40

Thanks for f**king up the MRA4 Project for over 10 years. Must be a record.

The R Letter should never, NEVER have been needed if your "Project" Managers were what they were supposed to be.

Ever heard of a f**king GANTT Chart?

Be proud of the UK Defence Industry? Really? Not if you lot are the "advert".

. . . and you truly think the world's that simple?

Undeniably, BAE works with the speed of a striking slug, but there are two sides to projects such as these.

Often the blue suited (in this case) side is staffed by non-professional project managers that are often moved on to satisfy career-progression and the like.

There are also many instances of 'moved goal posts'. Moving them costs time and money.

Yeller_Gait

2nd Sep 2011, 11:49

Not to blame blame Bae entirely for MRA4 failing, but it does seem that whatever BAe touch seems to get f@$?Ed up. If only they stuck to UK programs, but unfortunately they seem to be involved in programs world wide. They have a relatively small involvement in a program I now work with, but they contribute major heartache with regard to the whole program.

Y_G

PEI_3721

2nd Sep 2011, 13:15

Yes I admit that I worked for them; mainly civil but with one short auspicious dabble in Nimrod 2000. I had a 6 months secondment as an advisor; not that it took 6 months to establish the appalling state of organisation and planning (operations / flight deck design), it took that long to find my replacement.
Yet BAe has delivered what has been asked of them; for the country - stable job opportunities, increased knowledge and technology, and foreign revenue (mainly oil). This was achieved under the auspices of a defence budget, providing the armed forces with tools of the trade, but perhaps with a belief (hope) that the expertise of these services would not be required. Unfortunately the political gambit, risk, bluff, etc, has been called, more by circumstance than by plan.
We did in fact get what we asked for, well being, employment, oil. Now we suffer the downside of the high life, and the reality of less than ideal military system. Hopefully there are still aspects of the original plan where the previously established solid foundations of our industry can be used to aid the recovery, but as with designing, testing and proving modern military systems this is not a quick process, and particularly as with military issues, the recovery will require a good management – Clausewitz, ‘The Principles of War’ comes to mind as good reading for the politicians, manderins, and military mangement.

covec

2nd Sep 2011, 13:15

Jimmy TAP & Dengue Fever

I assume that BAE knows it's customers?

And that therefore "bluesuits" moving on was known about?

And so you must have a BAE POC to maintain continuity?

And that therefore you have a Requirements Capture & Requirements Baseline & QA department all setup? Auditors? Ever heard of the word "no" to requests for changes post Requirements Capture has been agreed?

Or is greed a player.......

Anyway, what the h3ll. Keep doing a sterling job for Britain.

Phil_R

2nd Sep 2011, 13:44

My father worked for Marconi then GEC just before the BAE Systems merger. He worked extensively on defence equipment there and at other companies.

The engineer's perspective of it is that the MoD is notorious for presenting poorly-written, ever-changing specifications, designing things already exist, ordering off the shelf then making so many mods that they may as well have made new, complaining when this behaviour extends deadlines and inflates costs, and generally behaving in a capricious, difficult and inefficient manner. This commonly has engineers (not necessarily management) bouncing their heads off the wall at the obviousness and the stupidity of it all.

From what I read on this forum this is a familiar situation (right down to the architectural/cranial percussion) to actual military users of this equipment too, which suggests to me that there is something hideously, enormously rotten with the thick layers of bureaucracy and management that exist between designer and end user.

I only know any of this secondhand, but the thing is that the engineer's end of this has apparently been the same since the 1950s when things were, according to old people, not so bad. Has something more subtle changed?

kiwibrit

2nd Sep 2011, 14:11

Harrier GR5/7/9/a without a gunHard to lay that one at BAe's door. I think BAe might have been quite happy with the GAU - though whether OR would have been happy with the weight of the GAU is another matter.

cazatou

2nd Sep 2011, 14:49

Cokecan

Your post No 8

I can only speak regarding the Aircraft that I flew in the RAF - but the BAe Jet Provost Mk5, the BAe 125's and the BAe 146's all worked perfectly well.

Thelma Viaduct

2nd Sep 2011, 15:06

Maybe HM forces should ask for aircraft/equipment/manpower funding from the 'in the city' genii that have spunked away all our taxes.

Deciding on a spec and sticking to it would also go some way to speeding up procurement too.

Aircraft are made 'up north' for a reason, it's because southerners are too busy swinging to do any real engineering, FACT !!!

Roadster280

2nd Sep 2011, 15:11

I knew there was a reason Hatfield, Weybridge and Wisley were shut down, I just couldn't pin it down. Lord, they must have been at it for years, what a revelation.

Of course Filton and Yeovil kind of messes up the plot though.

cazatou

2nd Sep 2011, 15:14

PP

If you really are "Pious" - how do you know about "Swinging"?

Biggus

2nd Sep 2011, 16:12

No doubt this thread was started as a result of the recent bad news at ISK, and possibly quite rightly so.

I am no apologist for BAE systems, indeed, on the basis of the H-C report I believe some of their senior management should have been prosecuted for fraud and possibly corporate manslaughter, but I have this annoying habit of preferring people to actually get their facts right. On that basis I have the following comments to make (this is not a dig at you personally Jamesdevice - but most of the comments seem to be in response to yours!).

1. The Upholder class were built by Vickers when it was an independent company and had nothing to do with BAE or GEC. Which is not to say they didn't have numerous faults.

2. In my personal experience, Stingray was a reliable and aggressive little ASW torpedo. As a "lightweight" ASW weapon it is not carried by submarines, and therefore does not attack the launching sub. Whether or not it attacks a ship it is launched from I cannot comment on, certain weapon settings should prevent this. To the best of my knowledge it never tried to attack any airborne platform that launched it...

3. Typhoon. Many pprune contributors have made incorrect comments on this platform over the years, no doubt either because they are young, and so weren't around during its development, or have forgotten some of the facts. It was a 4 nation project, so any faults cannot be laid solely at BAEs door. In terms of the extended development and cost overruns, people seem to forget what actually happened. During the development period the German military became very tight on money. For several years they just said, "..we have no money to contribute this year, cancel it if you want, if not, we'll be back next year to talk again...". The project went into minimal tick over, but costs were still incurred, even though no real progress was made. This added several years to the project. While not the only cause of delay, this was undoubtedly a major contributor.

Typhoon was only required as an air defence platform by the Germans, Spanish and the Italians, it was only the Brits, who wanted to replace both the Tornado F3 and Jag with the Typhoon, who initially had any requirement for any ground attack capability.

Finally, Typhoon is a software intensive aircraft. I don't think people fully appreciate the issues this can create (F-22 computer lock ups on crossing 180 E/W) in terms of testing, configuration control, etc....

4. Type 45 missile - once again a multi nation programme, but any faults appear solely attributable to BAE?

I did a course many years ago, during which the students were told some procurement cock up stories - like the new PLB that was entering the trials phase. When about to board a launch to go out and do some trials work at sea, the company representative looked suprised, and said it probably wouldn't work. The new PLB wasn't waterproof - why not, because that was not specified in the requirements!! You get what you ask for.

We suggested as a course that a sort of "procurement OCU" should be set up, which all military officers should do prior to going into a procurement related jobs - if it only saved one or two mistakes the cost of the course would be saved many times over.

The staff response - they thought we were being a "difficult course"! :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Small Spinner

2nd Sep 2011, 17:41

Phil R quote
The engineer's perspective of it is that the MoD is notorious for presenting poorly-written, ever-changing specifications, designing things already exist, ordering off the shelf then making so many mods that they may as well have made new, complaining when this behaviour extends deadlines and inflates costs, and generally behaving in a capricious, difficult and inefficient manner. This commonly has engineers (not necessarily management) bouncing their heads off the wall at the obviousness and the stupidity of it all.

From what I read on this forum this is a familiar situation (right down to the architectural/cranial percussion) to actual military users of this equipment too, which suggests to me that there is something hideously, enormously rotten with the thick layers of bureaucracy and management that exist between designer and end user.

I only know any of this secondhand, but the thing is that the engineer's end of this has apparently been the same since the 1950s when things were, according to old people, not so bad. Has something more subtle changed?

Spot on:ok: The number of reworks, re-costings, re-everything imposed by PTs are staggering, and its down to all the Human Factor dirty dozen elements like complacency, lack of knowledge, norms etc.
Not saying that companies should not take their share of the blame, but look a bit closer to home first, there is a common factor with many of the projects undertaken by defence companies, and that is the defence procurement / PTs

jamesdevice

2nd Sep 2011, 18:16

Biggus said: "2. In my personal experience, Stingray was a reliable and aggressive little ASW torpedo. As a "lightweight" ASW weapon it is not carried by submarines, and therefore does not attack the launching sub. Whether or not it attacks a ship it is launched from I cannot comment on, certain weapon settings should prevent this. To the best of my knowledge it never tried to attack any airborne platform that launched it...!"

I have to hang my head in shame here and say memory played me false.
The piece of junk I was thinking of was the Tigerfish
Apologies for the error

iRaven

2nd Sep 2011, 19:01

Hatfield, Weybridge and Wisley

Plus Handley-Page at Radlett...Supermarine at Woolston...Hawker at Langley/Dunsfold/Kingston upon Thames...Hunting at Luton...

But they were all successful and prime real-estate and ripe for asset stripping. :ugh:

Cazatou - Jet Provost designed and built by Huntings in Luton, 125 and 146 designed and built by Hawker-Siddley at Hatfield. Common geographical link, huh?

Pious - biggest mistake was letting you Norvern Monkeys run our once great aircraft industry - FACT!! :ok:

iRaven

Romeo Oscar Golf

2nd Sep 2011, 21:23

i was going to ask if BAe had ever produced anything that arrived on time,

Fortunately yes....My pension!:ok:

jindabyne

2nd Sep 2011, 21:29

For the time being ---- :suspect:

Dengue_Dude

2nd Sep 2011, 23:09

Phil R

At the risk of upsetting your dad . . . nothing's changed.

OP

Don't forget (although it may be convenient to do so), that BAE too have had deep cuts too, personnel, projects, skilled personnel - all gone. A lot of them put a lifetime's work in too.

It's NOT as one-sided as you paint it. I can understand it's a bit raw, but life truly goes on.

I applied and thankfully got redundancy in the 93 tranche. Happiest day of my life when I left. There IS a life after the services and often a happy one (and before anyone gets excited, I'm not talking about casualties here).

Get over it, people in industry/business/manufacturing live in a climate where their job is unsafe all the time - most of them won't get a pension either (of any description). Nobody gives a **** if they're made redundant.

I presume you were paid during your time in?

Seldomfitforpurpose

2nd Sep 2011, 23:23

I applied and thankfully got redundancy in the 93 tranche.

And 18 years on you are still posting in here offering tosh and snipes, good to see you have moved on...... cheers :rolleyes:

jamesdevice

3rd Sep 2011, 00:01

interesting comment made to me a couple of weeks ago by a BAE Systems manager. I won't mention the site for obvious reasons
"Before they took us over we had lots of work, which was all brought in by the local management. After the takeover we were told that in future all work contracts would be found and negotiated at a 'higher level' and that we were not to be involved. As a result our factory is nearly empty, 70% of the staff have gone and we've had no new orders for nearly a year".

Ogre

3rd Sep 2011, 00:47

Biggus / Phil_R / Small Spinner

I welcomed your comments as reasoned and well argued. Personally I have spent time on both sides of the fence, both in a blue suit (where we used to refer to "British Wasteofspace") and in a shirt and tie under British Aerospace and BAE Systems. I have numerous colleagues who have been in similar situations, and I can't think of one of them who has not expressed their frustration at one time or another at the process we have to go through to create the products to support our armed forces.

One of the biggest problems I find on long term projects is that the customer changes at regular intervals, as project office officers get posted. As one gets near the end of their posting they will be very averse to agreeing or signing for anything, and when the new guy (or gal) takes over they want changes made to suit their interpretation of requirements. All this adds time and cost to projects.

Saying that, I still find managers who don't understand the customer and how they operate. One of my current tasks involves presenting training to staff on a specialist engineering field, and I often drop in war stories about how we should design products to withstand what we term as "reasonable misuse". The military customer does not operate in an office environment, and until that is understood then the products we build will continue to fall short of expectations.

In short, before you start blaming the other side for poor performance I suggest you FULLY understand what they have to go through, and then ask yourself if you are helping or hindering their performance by your actions!

Exrigger

3rd Sep 2011, 09:02

Ogre, agree with your post entirely and would concur with:

Saying that, I still find managers who don't understand the customer and how they operate

and in all fairness that also covers other companies working within the military environment, allthough some of the problems are also from ex-service personnel now working for these companies, a bit like how soon they forget, or more likely never knew.

Dengue_Dude

3rd Sep 2011, 10:51

And 18 years on you are still posting in here offering tosh and snipes, good to see you have moved on...... cheers

Yep, and happy to do so. I wasn't going to respond, but I thought I'd indulge myself.

I also did 24 years and the experience shaped me and my views. That coupled with 10 years commercial aviation followed by some years associated with aircraft manufacturers made me realise so much of what I believed in the RAF was 'tosh' and very one-sided at that.

This is a forum where we can express our beliefs, including 'tosh' and 'snipes' (?). Qualified, done the time, got the T-shirt.

Oh and I have moved way on . . . but obviously not in a direction YOU like. Get over it. My opinion is easily as valid as yours.

Seldomfitforpurpose

3rd Sep 2011, 11:05

Oh and I have moved way on . . .

18 years on and still posting on a military forum, I sense a little bit of denial here :p

ExRAFRadar

3rd Sep 2011, 11:22

Seldomfitforpurpose

3rd Sep 2011, 11:23

KF,

Neither, Prune just like the military will not give a toss if I turn left or right as I depart, grown up enough this end to fully understand that :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose

3rd Sep 2011, 11:25

Sorry for the thread creep but...

So who should be allowed to post.

I suggest that it must be Serving Officers, no oiks obviously, only Aircrew, and pilots at that.

And as soon as you leave the Service you lose all rights to post in any military forum anywhere. Ever.

:hmm:

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.

I didn't write it but this looks pretty clear to me :ok:

Phil_R

3rd Sep 2011, 15:24

This thread brings up an issue which I have heard raised in similar contexts before: that of people being posted every two years.

I've heard people say that it causes hiccups in the management of projects and facilities, it costs a fortune in terms of resettlement payments, it affects the kids' education, causes family upheaval, etc. One person - a reasonably young-looking female flight lieutenant involved at the time in recruiting - told me that spending six months of every 18 either moving out or moving into another home was absolutely the single worst thing about being in the RAF.

So why do it?

The B Word

3rd Sep 2011, 17:34

...so those of us with postings to sh!te locations only have to do 2 years?
:ok:

cazatou

3rd Sep 2011, 18:41

iRaven

The Jet Provost was originally built by Hunting Aircraft Ltd and operated in its TMk3 and TMk4 variants - the T Mk 3 entering Service in June 1959 whilst the T Mk 4 entered Service in November 1961. The radically redesigned BAe Jet Provost Mk5 entered Service in 1969.

The HS 125 was the original designation of that type but later variants were BAe 125's - both were operated by 32 Sqn.

The HS 146 became the BAe 146 prior to production commencing and as such entered RAF Service on 20 June 1983 according to my Log Book (ZD 696). I collected the first aircraft from BAe.

PS Before the Pedants leap in - 10 Jet Provost Mk1 Aircraft did comparative trials at 2 FTS Hullavington in 1955 - the first Student to go solo on a Jet Provost was Plt Off RT Foster on 17 October 1955.

RumPunch

3rd Sep 2011, 19:48

Had the good fortune to work with BAE till the last, great guys but I think the blame lies in design not nothing to do with the fact it took them 3 hours a day to remove a panel due to stupid work practises that if somebody capable of using a screwdriver and undoing 5 fasteners would ensure a walk out from the unions. BAE have there own self to blame and there work practices are shocking . Good riddance they have screwed the UK to far the lazy bastards

Vim_Fuego

3rd Sep 2011, 21:00

In post #1 it lays the blame for MRA4 failure at the feet of the project manager...I'm a project manager for the company in question although nothing to do with that particular programme...It's not the job of the project manager to ultimately decide if a project should continue...My job is one akin to a conductor keeping the various parts of my orchestra in tune and on time...At various times in any of my projects I present a snapshot of where I am to people a deal higher than me up the food chain (review board/steering group) to decide if what we are doing still holds benefit, still meets the requirement, isn't being achieved by another project elsewhere (not likely in MR4 scenario!) and should it continue...as a PM it's not my decision to proceed and I abide by the boards decisions and react to their advice...it should be noted that the customer has representation at these reviews and must sign off on the results...So the MOD could at any time decide that the project isn't worth it anymore and close it with justification. Outside of these boards there are built in 'go/no-go' gates on the larger projects where in smaller reviews failures will show up...The production of the data for all of these reviews is produced by various people so it's not a case of one person being able to draw up the figures and hide damaging facts...

The detailed requirements for a complex project like the MRA4 must have been difficult to tie down...The devil is in this area and once you think you've got them they move around again...Once baselined they become configured and controlled items so it would be easy to see who was changing them and where the overspend was coming from if you had access to the change control documentation...

Dengue_Dude

3rd Sep 2011, 21:12

18 years on and still posting on a military forum, I sense a little bit of denial here

I think I spend time here because I enjoy the wit and repartee . . . I also quite enjoyed my time in the RAF, the people, the aircraft and what we did with them. Nostalgia's not what it was.

There's not a lot of entertainment around and the TV is full of repeats. So taking the opportunity of pointing out that the view is much better when the head is extracted from the @rse is good fun (for me anyway, and it's only my opinion I'm responsible for).

Ogre

3rd Sep 2011, 23:41

ExRAFRadar,

Your call, if what you really want is a Pilot only forum.

However it won't make engineering any better! As I have often said in my career as a "lowly oik",when you get two pilots you always get three opinions!

Seldomfitforpurpose

3rd Sep 2011, 23:55

I think I spend time here because I enjoy the wit and repartee . . . I also quite enjoyed my time in the RAF, the people, the aircraft and what we did with them. Nostalgia's not what it was.

There's not a lot of entertainment around and the TV is full of repeats. So taking the opportunity of pointing out that the view is much better when the head is extracted from the @rse is good fun (for me anyway, and it's only my opinion I'm responsible for).

So 18 years on and at 22:12 on a Saturday night you have nothing better in your life to do than to post on Prune :confused:

Could almost understand the quiet night in thing if you were still serving but 18 years on, **** me I know for sure there is better in store for me come next year :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose

4th Sep 2011, 00:18

KF,

Another civilian with nowt better to do on a Saturday night :p

fergineer

4th Sep 2011, 05:06

And another one SFFP...... People can take advice or leave it, it is their choice so dont worry about what us oldies have to say if you dont want to listen but we like others before us can help.I for one have given advice to people on life here in nz they took it or left it

tucumseh

4th Sep 2011, 06:12

Vim Fuego

Excellent post. I have no feelings one way or another for BAeS, but you articulate well the problems any project manager has, especially the moving feast, decision points and who sticks their oar in. Very often the project is effectively frozen for years awaiting a relatively simple decision.

On MRA4, I'd like to hear the opinion of an MoD project manager on the NART report of 1998. Reading it, it is patently obvious that the project needed immediate re-endorsement on both slippage and cost escalation grounds. And that the problems it listed had been well known for at least 6 years. One assumes that approval was given - a number of times! That decision making process must be recorded.

Is it not time for a searching public inquiry? Every time something like this happens, the MoD's line is "It is in the past, we've improved and moved on". But, invariably, the moving on involves promotions for those who screwed up and its the same old faces in charge of the asylum. Why not kill two birds with one stone and have a joint MRA4 / Chinook Mk3 inquiry? After all, the management oversight on both programmes was provided by exactly the same people and they demonstrably knew of the problems at the start of the programmes.

cazatou

4th Sep 2011, 07:31

SFFP and the "ignore list".

The perfect marriage.

1.3VStall

4th Sep 2011, 08:50

Caz, I agree. Either that, or early retirement would fit the bill perfectly!:ugh:

Seldomfitforpurpose

4th Sep 2011, 09:05

SFFP and the "ignore list".

The perfect marriage.

Caz,

Was hoping you might grace us with a comment on the fantastic outcome to the Mull enquiry :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose

4th Sep 2011, 09:07

Caz, I agree. Either that, or early retirement would fit the bill perfectly!:ugh:

Asked for it, it's not an option so just over a year to go before I become a civilian :ok:

covec

4th Sep 2011, 10:26

Vim Fuego

That was a good post.

But surely over a 10 year period, 120 months (hence my "simplified" comment about Gantt Charts!) someone must surely to God have asked about the over-run. The chart must have gone three times around the room - a veritable "elephant-in-the-room" situation! It's there but no bu**er wants to acknowledge it.

I have some minor Project Management experience: Moral Courage to tell "The Board" what they do not want to hear is one desirable pre-requisite - in my opinion - of a Project Manager (PM) - or whoever ultimately represents the collective viewpoint of all the PMs invlolved to the Board.

Unless of course, and this is a commercial reality in the West I guess, there is a strong, strong pressure, to keep things "moving along", bringing in the cash and keeping the shareholders (& other stakeholders) happy.

If the posts are forcibly moved, then the customer pays - in more ways than one ultimately e.g. R Day!

I posted this after seeing the reactions of some of my colleagues - I felt so, so sorry for them. And angry on their behalf. As I am sure BAe employees felt too.

For me - nearly three decades served - I am happy to go.

But I would have stayed for an MRA4 post.

Vim_Fuego

4th Sep 2011, 10:37

It would have been interesting to sit in on some of the reviews to see what was being said...However as I said earlier the customer would have been well represented on those boards and if anything didn't agree with them then they would have been in a strong position to find that the programme would not have been meeting at least the time line element of the requirements...

Impossible to say without the documentation, minutes etc in front of you...I have to say I was flying on Nims when it began and was still flying, albeit on another type, when it was cancelled and it beggered belief that it had the legs, with the spending taken into consideration, that it did in my opinion from my position then...

hello1

4th Sep 2011, 14:08

If we're honest then the MRA4 should have been cancelled years ago and well before we spent $4Bn on it. Yes the MOD probably tooled around with the specifications but flying in a straight line is probably not one of the things that they got wrong.

The decision to purchase MRA4 was primarily political - by the last Conservative government. The decision to continue with the farce was Noo Labour. Overall then, this had little to do with military capability and everything to do with greasing the palms of contractors and the workforce.

The point I think is that the UK could probably get away with this nonsense when the government was prepared to spend a reasonable amount on Defence. The current bunch are not (perhaps they could bail out BAES from the International Development slush fund), still want to use the armed forces and labour under the utter illusion that British Industry automatically builds the best equipment in the world. In some cases they do but we need to buy what we need on the basis of its merits.

Rigga

4th Sep 2011, 14:30

covec said:
"Moral Courage to tell "The Board" what they do not want to hear is one desirable pre-requisite - in my opinion - of a Project Manager (PM) - or whoever ultimately represents the collective viewpoint of all the PMs invlolved to the Board."

As a (seasoned) Quality Manager I have had to state the unwanted news many times and endured the ignorance of my advice by several company Boards.

In the end, for the more important items, I have the luxury or resorting to feeding External auditors and Regulators (note the capital "R") to "repeat" my findings and support my internal reports. (How I manage my managers)

I feel, and obviously without first-hand knowledge, that RAF "Project Managers" seem to have very little experience of what to do if a Project slips and are likely to sit back (Numb-struck?) and misguidedly wait to see what happens as they expect the civilian Contractor to "sort it". (perhaps often without adequate direction from their "customer" bosses?)

What I call "the Numbnut effect" (it happens outside too) is likely to happen more and more often now that the Customer has less and less effective managers in post or even in training. This lack of project expertise is further compounded by the regular movement of these semi-experienced staff between projects/posts.

I feel they (in which I mean all MOD) are on a spiralling course of terminal decline due to their current financial starvation, dozens of years of perpetual mis-management and so-called "business ethics" training (to prepare officers fo the outside world?) which cannot mix well with military ethics, training and purpose.

I would say this amplifies the need for permanent civilian or permanent staff Project Officers as the way forward on all projects.

...and No. It's not always BAe's fault!

Canadian Break

4th Sep 2011, 18:31

Gents
Reading this thread with interest. A few years ago I was posted to the Ministry of Daftness as a Sqn Ldr and ended up as Customer 1 for 3 programmes - all of which were "in trouble". Very early on I had to attend a meeting at Wyton - which was a bunch of civil servants (some very senior) chaired by a RN 3 star. I sat "on the sidelines" for about 3 hours until one of the senior civil servants stood up and briefed one of my projects as "in the green" (using that bloody awful traffic light system). At that point I felt compelled to stand up and tell the Admiral that the previous speaker had, at the very least, been disingenuous! Wow, how unpopular was I - but it needed to be said. Interestingly enough, I had not seen that civil servant - or his minions at any meeting I had with the company (EDS) responsible since I had taken over as Customer 1 (sorry Bob B). So, it's not always the Service blokes that are responsible!:=

Seldomfitforpurpose

4th Sep 2011, 19:20

37 years in and I cannot recall an instance where we ever purchased anything that came in on time, on budget and did exactly what it said on the tin.

The common denominator in all of this is the Officer cadre, no chips here guys none at all but we ask those folk to go and do something that they are out of their depth attempting.

If I go to buy a TV, computer, camera, car etc etc I KNOW before I go that the salesman is going to try and hoop me into buying the stuff he wants to unload and make the most money on.

It's no accident that the Internet is awash with websites to help the unsuspecting navigate their way through some of these major purchases, clucking bell Which Magazine has been going for years for precisely that reason.

Is in any bloody wonder when we send Flt Lt's and Sqn Ldr's etc to take on the piranhas of big business that we get hooped.

Is it any bloody wonder that when we then post said officers every 2 years because it's good for their career paths we get hooped.

None of this is rocket science and we can try and blame any manufacturer we like but the plain and honest truth is that we do it all on our own all of the time.

Until we can face up that then the process will continue and big business will rub it's hands with glee every time some poor unsuspecting sap in light blue/dark blue/green walks through the door.

downsizer

4th Sep 2011, 19:42

C17???????

Lima Juliet

4th Sep 2011, 19:51

Reaper??????

Lima Juliet

4th Sep 2011, 19:52

E-3D???? And we bought it to cover the shortfall of another British guff - NimWACS....

jamesdevice

4th Sep 2011, 19:58

aren't those three all American?
Certainly not BAE Systems products....

jindabyne

4th Sep 2011, 20:00

With regards to Posts 60 & 61.

The first is from a point of knowledge.

The second is rant, as ever; knows all about everything (crewroom, that is), and opines over matters of which he has no real knowledge (eg RAF Club, BAES, MoD Procedures etc). P**ck! A man that knows all about nothing. Looks forward to his retirement, and total severance from the RAF (aside from the pension). A SNCO with a huge chip. A Mess bore.

No doubt I'll receive a charming , and well-sarcasticly scripted re-buff. To which I will respond in advance. F-off.

Sorry, but I needed to.

Rigga

4th Sep 2011, 20:06

The C17 is/was a lease agreement and is/was dominated by Boeing's methods of maintenance and maintenance management - not the RAF's (I believe this is still so) And very productive it has been too. It should be held as an example of how the RAF's ancient and traditional methods can be replaced by something that works - and, many would say, works very well indeed.

Another project to look at is the US Army's Lakota Helicopter Project where 300+ helicopters were bought "Off The Shelf" from BBK/Eurocopter.

Even if there are misgivings about how the EC145 variant performs the reason they were purchased was to be able to flood any "Homeland" (how I dislike that word!) incidents with usable cheap ANG/Reserve Service helicopters that can do a job of work. That purchase was not about replacing the Huey but supplying a lot of helicopters from already produced commercial stock.

That purchase is proof that the military dont need everything made especially for them, and that some things are already useful tools - even without modification.

I know of many other operators who have put much, much more mods onto their EC145 aircraft - and I'm not talking about leather seats and ashtrays.

Seldomfitforpurpose

4th Sep 2011, 20:08

Jin,

No you won't Sir, way to polite for that but if you could point out the flaw in my thought process :ok:

LJ and Downsizer I happily concede to those items which highlights the lack of detail in my post and overall knowledge, but I suspect you knew where I was coming from :ok:

The B Word

4th Sep 2011, 20:33

@jamesdevice

Re: US aircraft - please read Post#61.

The B Word

Eminence Gris

4th Sep 2011, 20:48

The main thing that went wrong with the MRA4 project was the expectations set in the 1995 Bid. MoD stressed to BAe that this was an open competition, and that the best performance coupled with the lowest cost would win. A couple of significant programmes, the Merlin helicopter and the Hercules upgrade C-130J, had already gone to American companies and BAe senior management thought that the loss of the competition to an American company would seal the company’s fate. Thus the Company treated RMPA as a must-win competition. MoD had set a budget of approximately £2bn and this conditioned BAe’s cost estimating for the originally proposed MR2 refurbishment programme (to be followed up with an MPA version of the FLA now A400.) In retrospect it is obvious that the extra cost put in for rewinging and re-engining was insufficient (an extra 25% at most) and the programme timescale was more or less unchanged from that pertaining to the originally proposed MR2 refurbishment programme. In short MoD asked for a golden apple and the company offered them one: a situation now described as “a conspiracy of optimism”. Certainly all those on the programme sweated blood to achieve the programme, but it was mission impossible from the start and merely a question of time how long the conspiracy would last.

The outturn costs stand comparison with those for the P-8 Poseidon given on the US GAO website. P-8 costs are estimated as $7.35bn (£4.9bn) and $202m (£134m) per aircraft, which makes $9.2bn (£6bn) for a nine aircraft fleet. £4bn for Nimrod MRA4 is cheap by comparison, particularly when you consider that one MRA4 is as operationally capable as two P-8s. I suggest therefore that MRA4 would have been excellent value for money. Not to be forgotten, however, is the fact that it was subsidised by the ever generous shareholders of BAE Systems through several write-offs.

In terms of the programme I'm sure things could have been done quicker (perhaps saving 3 years) but 15 years from contract to service is not unusual these days. Certainly it is better than Eurofighter Typhoon (a vastly simpler aircraft) and, let’s face it, better than what the USN has achieved with MMA/P-8. It should not be forgotten that the USN initiated its P-3 replacement programme (P-7) in 1989 and cancelled it due to cost overrun in 1990. Thus with the P-8 not yet in service and still with a number of hurdles to get over, the USN has waited even longer than the RAF to replace its cold war MPAs.

Ultimately the BAE Systems Team produced a world-beating product at a non-unreasonable price and in the sort of timescale one might have expected. I feel desperately sad for the consequent redundancies in the RAF for those who were waiting to operate MRA4, but it should not be forgotten that BAE have suffered 2500 job losses so far as a result of SDSR with undoubtedly more still to come. Cancellation at the time it came with the programme cost spent and the aircraft almost ready was completely illogical particularly with the SDSRs clear statement of the importance of ISTAR capability and MRA4 being the most flexible ISTAR platform the MoD would have ever had. Unfortunately MRA4 finally fell victim to the need for a big political gesture and inter-service rivalry where each service protected its own "toys" and allowed the "orphan" platforms to go hang, ie the naval platforms operated by the RAF such as MRA4 and Harrier and the Army platform operated by the RAF, ie Sentinel.

Eminence Gris

jamesdevice

4th Sep 2011, 20:51

in other words the only equipment we get that works, is that which has already had the developmental risk aspects handled by someone else.
i.e. off-the-shelf purchases of items which have been developed elsewhere.
I find it interesting that all the recent purchases of mine/IED resisitant vehicles for Afghanistan have been effectively "off the shelf" overseas designs (though some were assembled in the UK). BAE / Vickers didn't get a look in

Dengue_Dude

4th Sep 2011, 20:55

Seems like you're making everyone as happy as you are.

I can understand you being pissed off, but most contracts for large machinery, civil engineering projects, ships, oil rigs et al tend to overrun - especially if the customer makes changes.

I have intimate knowledge of this happening on one particular project concerning the RAF and BAES, the goal posts moved quite a bit and even when the project was ready for delivery, much of the hold up was caused by different parts of MOD/RAF not getting their 'i' dotted and 't' crossed.

Sad fact of life. Simply, it's not ALL anyone's fault. It's just life. Using non-professionals to negotiate contracts is not sensible or efficient - that is the RAF's responsibility pure and simple.

Redundancy is a part of modern life. I've been redundant 3 times and it's OK, there is life afterwards. All the anger in the world won't make a jot of difference.

Enough breath expended.

Seldomfitforpurpose

4th Sep 2011, 21:50

Eng,

I am not pissed off, in fact I could not be happier with my lot, seriously I am as happy as a sand boy and I am not being made redundant :ok:

If you go back and read my post you will see we are singing from the same song sheet. Industry has it share if we are apportioning blame but the military is completely feckin inept when it comes to buying stuff hence it almost always goes pete tong :(

tucumseh

5th Sep 2011, 05:31

Dengue Dude

much of the hold up was caused by different parts of MOD/RAF not getting their 'i' dotted and 't' crossed.
Don't forget double full-stops. An IPT "Management Board" (17 staff, only 2 of them my senior and most non-technical) delayed approval for a high priority job for AFG for 6 weeks because I'd put a double full-stop at the end of a sentence in my technical spec. :ugh: That's 17 staff, out of a 39-strong IPT, MoD could do without.

(SFFP - I still delivered ahead of schedule (12 months +), under cost (by over 300%) and to a far better spec, because I'd ignored the "Management Board" and already conducted final trials on what the User actually needed, not what the URD said. Their eventual approval to enter development was as meaningless as their little self centered "Board").

Dengue_Dude

5th Sep 2011, 12:02

Where appropriate, please accept apologies.

I suppose the point I was trying to make is each 'side' has its unfair share of incompetents (for diverse reasons).

It's as frustrating 'this' side as it is from the other. As Tucumseh says, you achieve DESPITE bloody committees, not because of them.

Enough said.

Either way, best of luck to those made redundant, it truly isn't the end of the world, there's a whole world out there that wants self-motivated, intelligent individuals, so you can be intimidated by them too just like the rest of us ;)

GarageYears

6th Sep 2011, 18:33

Firstly a confession - I worked, as an employee for a company supplying equipment to the MRA4 flight simulators - yes, there was a very nice building at Kinloss fully populated with 2 full-flight sims (motion sims for the cockpit), 2 FTD cockpit simulators (same as full-flights without the motion) and 2 rear-crew simulators and a bunch of PTT and other kit. These were all accepted and in full service at the time of program cancellation. All are now scrapped.

The problem was two-sided.

1) The MOD was unable to write a spec worth a bean. You might as well said we need some simulators to train the crew, once you've built them we'll tell you what is or isn't any good.

2) The contractors (everyone from BAE down) were desperate to win the contracts, so promised the moon... for next to a penny. And then charged whatever enormous number they could for any change order the MOD was backed into a corner to put in writing.

As far as we (the engineering team involved in developing the sims) could tell the entire program was run the same way.

At the time of cancellation I was personally involved in a quotation to update a part of these same simulators that had seen only acceptance crew through the doors, to the tune of $1-2M for a system that had only been operational for 3 years and was ALREADY obsolete. This update would have replaced the original system with something costing twice as much, to do the same job. This is a very tiny slice of the what was happening across the board.

-GY

tucumseh

6th Sep 2011, 18:43

The MOD was unable to write a spec worth a bean. You might as well said we need some simulators to train the crew, once you've built them we'll tell you what is or isn't any good.

I can't speak for what the RMPA office was told to do, but the policy of that MoD(PE) Director General (2 Star) was that project managers were NOT to contract anyone to write specs for simulators or trainers. If you didn't have anyone in the team to do it, tough. On my programme, at the same time, no-one had a scoobie (including myself), so I "contracted" Boscombe to hire recently retired aircrew as consultants, and bury the cost in "materiel". When the Director sought reassurance I was not contracting anyone to specify the trainer, I just said yes. If I'd have followed his instructions, the aircraft fleet would still be parked in a hangar somewhere - not unlike Chinook Mk3 (same 2 Star).

NutLoose

6th Sep 2011, 18:59

Another project to look at is the US Army's Lakota Helicopter Project where 300+ helicopters were bought "Off The Shelf" from BBK/Eurocopter.Rigga,
They had a lot of problems with these at first as no US military helicopter previously had air conditioning fitted, so USA PLC ommited it from the Lakota even though the manufacturer advised against it, then suffered a lot of avionics failures due to overheating..

read

UH-72A Lakota Overheating Problem (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?123472-UH-72A-Lakota-Overheating-Problem)

Small Spinner

6th Sep 2011, 19:24

When I started working on the project I was assured that it would have first flight in 4 months, it never flew in the 2 years I was with BAe.
Around the same time an aerodynamics engineer was asking, whether the aircraft would possibly land with the torpedoes still in the bomb bay, as this was important due to the C of G problems (it was too far aft). There were many engineers running around with their hair on fire, figuring out how much fuel to pump around the tanks to maintain an adequate C of G under all conditions, all seemingly due to the necessary positioning of the new wings and engines, which with a new fuselage would have ideally been positioned further aft.
The heavy flying controls, the inadequate autopilot, it all seemed to lurch from one crisis to another, although I was assured these things were just part of the trials and tribulations of building aircraft.
I spent many happy hours on the Nimrod, or being taken places by them, but to say I was concerned about the issues, and how they were handled would be an understatement.

Rigga

6th Sep 2011, 20:05

NutLoose:
"Rigga,
They had a lot of problems with these at first as no US military helicopter previously had air conditioning fitted, so USA PLC ommited it from the Lakota even though the manufacturer advised against it, then suffered a lot of avionics failures due to overheating.."

Yep. I know. One of my Type Ratings is BK117-C2 (or EC145). And I don't work for military helicopter operators.

To fly one of these in a hot place is quite unbearable - sitting under all that "glass" isn't good in hot climes. We were quite surprised the US Army didn't order the AirCon as standard? The AirCon was a bit of a bugger getting used to at first but it was worth the effort of getting it. And at least one instrument was prone to overheat/seizing well before the spams got them (from my course notes!)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

6th Sep 2011, 20:32

this was important due to the C of G problems (it was too far aft).

Would the insertion of a 6' 6" plug in the forward fuselage have solved it? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/mpangel.gif. Mind you, that might have needed Shackleton fins to be resurrected.

NutLoose

7th Sep 2011, 00:35

Here sadly is another tail heavy one :( if you like Nimrods do not look.

Nimrod R1 XW665 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=111650)

Wensleydale

7th Sep 2011, 09:09

Don't forget double full-stops. An IPT "Management Board" (17 staff, only 2 of them my senior and most non-technical) delayed approval for a high priority job for AFG for 6 weeks because I'd put a double full-stop at the end of a sentence in my technical spec. :ugh: That's 17 staff, out of a 39-strong IPT, MoD could do without.

Moral of the story - have your work proof read by some-one else before you send it - that extra couple of hours can save you weeks. (The double full stop should have been picked up by a green wavy line in word. If not using word, then it is good practice to write in word first then cut and paste into other formats).

(Must check this before I send it tho')!

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

7th Sep 2011, 12:45

I'd go a bit deeper than that, Wensleydale...

How about too many people talking a good job, and not enough people getting things done?

After my little incident, I became a desk jonny. I was resonably well motivated & competent, but the work was piling on to me, they were whipping the willing horse.

Simple prioritisation degenerated into a system of work avoidance. What could I do to postpone one job so that I could concentrate on a more important one. Bung an e mail back asking for more info? Job done.

The IPT, almost without fail, issued STI's, RTI's & UTI's on a Friday. I suspect that the reason for this was that they spent all week having meetings, and had to make it someone else's problem by the weekend. .

tucumseh

7th Sep 2011, 12:54

Thanks for that Wensleydale. I do hope your tongue was firmly in cheek.

The real moral of the story is MoD is chock full of over-promoted plonkers who have nothing better to do than fart about looking for such major howlers. The guy who spotted it prefaced his comments with "As I don't understand the technical spec...I suppose I better comment on something". In which case, why is he employed to scrutinise a technical spec? And why did I need to write a spec in the first place? Because the system doesn't allow DEC to specify a requirement; URDs are so woolly that, if contracted, the deliverable could meet the endorsed requirement but be incapable of being put to its intended use.

In the example I quoted, the main issue was military personnel were dying due to lack of a solution. It is simply not acceptable for MoD to employ anyone, at any grade, who adopts the stance taken. Something I hope everyone here would agree with.

Seldomfitforpurpose

7th Sep 2011, 15:35

Tuc,

Not just the MOD :ok:

KG86

10th Sep 2011, 12:54

Congratulations to the organisers and participants at the Dinner last night. Excellent speeches and a wide spread of guests (including crewmen and engineers!) made it a truly memorable event.

Chinook rules OK.

TheWizard

10th Sep 2011, 15:01

cazatou

10th Sep 2011, 15:38

Celebrating SFFP's departure?

Modern Elmo

10th Sep 2011, 15:48

that might have needed Shackleton fins to be resurrected.

Did the Shackleton die for our sins?

KG86

10th Sep 2011, 19:26

I actually replied to the right thread but, like a number of posters have reported, the reply appeared in a totally different one.

baffy boy

11th Sep 2011, 22:18

Moral of the story - have your work proof read by some-one else before you send it - that extra couple of hours can save you weeks. (The double full stop should have been picked up by a green wavy line in word. If not using word, then it is good practice to write in word first then cut and paste into other formats).

(Must check this before I send it tho')!

Hello Wensleydale, having reviewed your post may I make the following suggestions; a, take the hyphen out of 'someone' and b, place the full stop of a sentence entirely enclosed within brackets within the brackets. (I know people take the Mick out of grammar police but I thought a bit of constructive comment in this case would be appropriate if not appreciated!)